No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

23 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 10, 2024 · in the opinion

    Legendre v. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Association (2024)

    …a role in causing the deceased's asbestos exposure, including, but not limited to: Hopeman Brothers, Inc., International Paper Company, Paramount Global, General Electric Company, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Foster-Wheeler, LLC, Uniroyal, Inc.…

  2. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 17, 2002 · in the opinion

    Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (2002)

    …Company, Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., Owens Brockway Glass Container, Inc., Studebaker Worthington, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., WR Grace & Co., Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Fibreboard Corp., GAF Corporation. Appeal of: John Crane, Inc., Appellant…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 30, 1983 · in the opinion

    Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983)

    …appears that the tests are the same, since, in general "\[o\]nce admiralty jurisdiction is established, then all of the substantive rules and precepts peculiar to the law of the sea become applicable." Brance v. Shumann…

  4. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Baker v. AC&S, Inc. (1999)

    …v. Gamble, 201 Pa. 289, 50 A. 971 (1902); Turton v. Powelton Electric Co., 185 Pa. 406, 39 A. 1053 (1898). Thus, "\[e\]ven if two parties were equally responsible for the plaintiff's injury, one…

  5. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · March 15, 1989 · in the opinion

    In re Johns-Manville Corp. (1989)

    …Thus, pursuant to ¶ 10.1(B) of the Plan and the general power of this Court, the Court retains jurisdiction to determine the instant dispute. The Plan also provides in ¶ 10.1(G) that the Court…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987

    In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)

    Asbestos manufacturers defending personal injury suits in the federal district court in New Jersey challenged a New Jersey Supreme Court rule. Under Beshada and later cases, asbestos defendants could not use the "state-of-the-art" defense, which…

  7. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 26, 2000 · in the opinion

    Baker v. ACandS (2000)

    He provided the following context: a party who signs a general release waiving all claims and discharging all parties will be precluded from thereafter suing a party who did not contribute consideration toward the release. However…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · May 15, 1998 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden v. Bullinger (1998)

    …verdict in favor of the hirer. The trial proceeded, resulting in judgments in favor of the plaintiff against the adverse driver and his general employer. On the plaintiff's appeal, the Court vacated the judgment in…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · January 11, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · December 4, 1992 · in the opinion

    In re Joint E. & So. Dist. Asbestos Litigation (1992)

    …Plan-related documents. We therefore consider whether the changes were authorized by the more general reserved power of the Bankruptcy Court to modify the Plan "to the full extent permitted by the Code." Plan § 10.1…

  11. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · November 30, 1990 · in the opinion

    In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit. (1990)

    …Unliquidated Claims on File $4.794 billion Unpaid Settlements .434 billion 47,000 Future Claims 1.840 billion \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Total $7.068 billion\[3\] (1) The Trust, as movant, represented by its General Counsel, David T. Austern…

  12. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · April 27, 1990 · in the opinion

    Jenkins v. Johns-Manville Products (1990)

    …BROCHIN. Lawrence G. Moncher, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent-appellant Commissioner Of Labor, and respondent-cross-appellant in A-5659-86T7 (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Lawrence G…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion

    Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)

    …statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…

  14. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion

    Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)

    …it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)

    …a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 1, 1983 · in the opinion

    Carter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)

    …been even reasonably knowable. The supplier would thus be free of culpability, but a price of his doing business is to protect people from danger from his products — or to pay. General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins…

  17. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  19. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 7, 1981 · in the opinion

    Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted. Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution states that the "general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, ..." Section 1.58(A)(1…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · November 21, 1980 · in the opinion

    McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980)

    …1969) the Court stated: "Because this is a diversity case, the law of the state where the district court sat controls questions [\339] of res judicata and estoppel. See also Aerojet-General Aviation Corp. v. Askew…